Exterior Redesign of an Industrial Palletizing Robot Cell
in Industrial Design Services held by pierreetiennegermainDiscussion
Any feedback on entry
.
.
Thank you for reviewing my submission. I noticed the entry
was declined and would appreciate any brief feedback on the reason so I can improve future submissions. If there were specific requirements that were not met, please let me know. Thank you.
was declined and would appreciate any brief feedback on the reason so I can improve future submissions. If there were specific requirements that were not met, please let me know. Thank you.
working on it,please wait until deadline,thanks
Just checking in to see if you have any feedback on my latest submission! I'd really appreciate a quick rating or any notes so I can fine-tune the design to perfection.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Robot must still be able to rotate fully downward into its flat shipping position, with zero collision against the new shell
Robot arm segments must also be able to fold back/rearward for a compact shipping footprint - please can you attach any image in that position thanks
Robot arm segments must also be able to fold back/rearward for a compact shipping footprint - please can you attach any image in that position thanks
any feedback on my latest entry
Hi,
Yes, the single exterior shell that encapsulates everything is a strict requirement. We do not want separate housings with a wiring channel between them.
The reference corner is a corner of the T-Base itself. The robot base should sit 24 in from that corner.
Thanks,
Yes, the single exterior shell that encapsulates everything is a strict requirement. We do not want separate housings with a wiring channel between them.
The reference corner is a corner of the T-Base itself. The robot base should sit 24 in from that corner.
Thanks,
Hi Daniel
No servo motor for us, we want to keep it simple and manual. It does not necessarily need to be telescoping either. The 81" width is approximate, so you have some flexibility there. What matters most is that the outriggers provide solid, reliable stability once in place, and that the legs can be removed or repositioned for transport. The cotter pin and hole assembly works fine for that. Feel free to propose the simplest design that achieves good stability.
Thanks,
No servo motor for us, we want to keep it simple and manual. It does not necessarily need to be telescoping either. The 81" width is approximate, so you have some flexibility there. What matters most is that the outriggers provide solid, reliable stability once in place, and that the legs can be removed or repositioned for transport. The cotter pin and hole assembly works fine for that. Feel free to propose the simplest design that achieves good stability.
Thanks,
The T-Base has a width of 81"; are you against the idea of the outrigger leg supports being mechanically raised and lowered by a servo motor; or would you rather have telescoping 'extendable' outrigger supports with standard cotter pin, and hole assembly to make the support legs (removable/repositionable) during transport/shipping/relocating?
1. Is the exterior shell that encapsulates everything a strict requirement, or is it possible to have one housing for the electrical panel and the robot controller (or maybe separate housing for both), and a separate robot base column/tower (like shown in the AI-generated concepts) with a channel between the two for wiring?
2. The requirements mention that the robot base should sit 24 in from the reference corner. What does it refer to? I cannot seem to find where the reference corner is shown.
2. The requirements mention that the robot base should sit 24 in from the reference corner. What does it refer to? I cannot seem to find where the reference corner is shown.
Bonjour Pierre, Etienne et Germain,
I have submitted an entry (
), would like to know if it meets your expectations. Regards
I have submitted an entry (
), would like to know if it meets your expectations. Regards
● Does the base need to remain a literal “T” shape, or is any shape acceptable as long as it fits inside the width/length/height/leg-span envelope?
It's probably best for a T shape but I'm open to some idea.
● Is there a target pallet-jack fork spacing/size (standard 27–28 in fork centers) we should design the base openings around?
yes 27-28 inch for pallet jack
● Is the 81 in deployed outrigger width a hard target, or can it be reduced if structurally justified?
can be reduce if you can make it.
It's probably best for a T shape but I'm open to some idea.
● Is there a target pallet-jack fork spacing/size (standard 27–28 in fork centers) we should design the base openings around?
yes 27-28 inch for pallet jack
● Is the 81 in deployed outrigger width a hard target, or can it be reduced if structurally justified?
can be reduce if you can make it.
● Does the base need to remain a literal “T” shape, or is any shape acceptable as long as it fits inside the width/length/height/leg-span envelope?
● Is there a target pallet-jack fork spacing/size (standard 27–28 in fork centers) we should design the base openings around?
● Is the 81 in deployed outrigger width a hard target, or can it be reduced if structurally justified?
● Is there a target pallet-jack fork spacing/size (standard 27–28 in fork centers) we should design the base openings around?
● Is the 81 in deployed outrigger width a hard target, or can it be reduced if structurally justified?
"Hi everyone! Happy to join the contest with Entry
. Wishing the best of luck to all the talented designers here!"
. Wishing the best of luck to all the talented designers here!"
FANUC R-30iB Mini Plus Box: Should the FANUC controller box sit completely hidden inside our exterior sheet metal cabinet (behind a hinged access door with air vents), or do you want the controller box itself mounted directly on the exterior / built into the outer shell? Yes it should be inside.
Outrigger Legs: Do you prefer manual swing-out legs (simple, robust, quick-locking pin) or fully pneumatic/motorized legs (automated via touchscreen)?
Manual, simple fast mechanism, no/few play.
Outrigger Legs: Do you prefer manual swing-out legs (simple, robust, quick-locking pin) or fully pneumatic/motorized legs (automated via touchscreen)?
Manual, simple fast mechanism, no/few play.
Dear pierreetiennegermain. I'm working on your project now. Almost done.
I'll share result as soon as possible.
Best Reagrds
Thi Vu
I'll share result as soon as possible.
Best Reagrds
Thi Vu
Hi pierreetiennegermain ,
Could you please clarify two quick setup details for the design?
FANUC R-30iB Mini Plus Box: Should the FANUC controller box sit completely hidden inside our exterior sheet metal cabinet (behind a hinged access door with air vents), or do you want the controller box itself mounted directly on the exterior / built into the outer shell?
Outrigger Legs: Do you prefer manual swing-out legs (simple, robust, quick-locking pin) or fully pneumatic/motorized legs (automated via touchscreen)?
Thanks!
Could you please clarify two quick setup details for the design?
FANUC R-30iB Mini Plus Box: Should the FANUC controller box sit completely hidden inside our exterior sheet metal cabinet (behind a hinged access door with air vents), or do you want the controller box itself mounted directly on the exterior / built into the outer shell?
Outrigger Legs: Do you prefer manual swing-out legs (simple, robust, quick-locking pin) or fully pneumatic/motorized legs (automated via touchscreen)?
Thanks!
I have added STEP file of the real robot, the robot controler, the electrical panel as well as the safety sensor.
working on it,please wait until deadline,thanks
Yes for Step, I dont have Catia but yes you can make it. Goal for now is more having ideas and new concept.
clintsar
Designer